At least they're half right. I think science (thinking) has inspired the best events in the world, and faith has inspired the worst.

Every good event in history was good because it was right. It was right because it was rational. Every good thing that has happened has either happened by luck or by the thoughts of men.

If you keep thinking long enough, you will realize that what is good is always the most rational.

Some of the worst events have happened because humans have allowed blind faith (in religion, in leaders, etc.) to skewer their thinking. Nazism wasn't a rational thing. It was extremely irrational. It was thinking without thought, meaning that men thought and thought and thought - all under the heading of a predetermined bias, antisemitism.

Faith is about doing everything under a bias. Thought is about getting rid of the bias.

[quote author=“johnpritzlaff”]
I think science (thinking) has inspired the best events in the world, and faith has inspired the worst.

Yes and no.

Science is a tool, and brings about good when it works for positive things. For example medical advancements and research have been good uses of science, while the building of atomic weapons has been bad. Science has the potential to advance civilization like no other thing before it. It is the best method we have so far for discovering the world and gaining new knowledge. However, it only has potential to bring about good, things aren’t simply good because they are scientific.

[quote author=“johnpritzlaff”]
Every good event in history was good because it was right. It was right because it was rational. Every good thing that has happened has either happened by luck or by the thoughts of men.

If you keep thinking long enough, you will realize that what is good is always the most rational.

Defining “good” by “right” is vague and circular. Rational does not mean that things are good. There could be a rational argument made for harvesting living people’s organs in order to save dying people, but without consent of the owner of the organ it doesn’t make it good.

Universal statements (as you made above) are a red herring when considering ethics (or right action), because the best action is almost always contingent on the situation. The most we can say is to ask the question what is the “best” action to this situation, rather than make sweeping statements that do not always bring about the best.

Your on the right track with your comments, but vear off a bit when you in your generality. Situation and circumstance count.